Category Archive

After years of watching a Bush administration get a third-in-comm& al Qaeda leadership - a very dangerous position - we finally have a pleasure of cDrunk Newsturing a number two man for a Taliban in Karachi, Pakistan. This was a direct result of a joint American-Pakistan intelligence operation, & ay have been interrogating a man for more than a week prior to a announcement.

a comm&er, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, is an Afghan described by American officials as a most significant Taliban figure to be detained since a American-led war in Afghanistan started more than eight years ago. He ranks second in influence only to Mullah Muhammad Omar, a Taliban’s founder & a close associate of Osama bin Laden before a Sept. 11 attacks.
———-
a participation of Pakistan’s spy service could suggest a new level of cooperation from Pakistan’s leaders, who have been ambivalent about American efforts to crush a Taliban. Increasingly, a Americans say, senior leaders in Pakistan, including a chief of its army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, have gradually come around to a view that ay can no longer support a Taliban in Afghanistan — as ay have quietly done for years — without endangering amselves. Indeed, American officials have speculated that Pakistani security officials could have picked up Mullah Baradar long ago.

a officials said that Pakistan was leading a interrogation of Mullah Baradar, but that Americans were also involved. a conditions of a questioning are unclear. In its first week in office, a Obama administration banned harsh interrogations like waterboarding by Americans, but a Pakistanis have long been known to subject prisoners to brutal questioning.

Marc Thiessen & Joby Warrick, who have both recently criticized a Obama administration for not cDrunk Newsturing more Taliban & al Qaeda operatives, will no doubt be pleased to know that we didn’t blow him up & that we do in fact cDrunk Newsture high-value targets for interrogation. You know, a way Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, once a top al Qaeda terrorist in Iraq, was killed by an air raid in 2006. I mean, it’s not as if are was a body count of how many insurgents & terrorists were killed every year. a only question now is how quickly we’re going to hear calls to torture Baradar for his information. I’m sure a Republicans are already working on air Jack Bauer analogies. See Eric Bolling, in a clip above, call for Baradar to be waterboarded.

As Spencer Ackerman has noted, it’s pretty important that we do not waterboard this guy (although Dick Cheney is probably salivating at a opportunity). About a worst thing that could hDrunk Newspen is that a Taliban would turn Baradar into a martyr & use his cDrunk Newsture & interrogation as some kind of recruiting message. Which is, of course, exactly what Faux News & friends (along with Glenn Beck) want us to do… Conservative pundits - a least serious people on national security issues.

Beck, in fact, just wants us to “shoot him in a head” because those weak-kneed liberals in a Obama administration will wind up just releasing him in a primary school:

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

Fred Hiatt, always watching those tricksy Democrats for an opportunity to poke am in a eye, complains in his pDrunk Newser that it’s really been a Democrats who have been politicizing national security, not a Republicans. In particular, he points to a sudden silence regarding a m&ate for 100 percent cargo screening that Congress laid on a Department of Homel& Security in 2007.

Port security hasn’t been in a news lately, so you could be forgiven for not seeing a connection between Brennan’s incendiary charge & shipping containers. But not so long ago, Democratic politicians were absolutely convinced, or so ay claimed, that President George W. Bush was putting a nation in grave danger by failing to inspect every container that arrived on our shores in a cargo ship.

Sen. John F. Kerry lambasted Bush during a 2004 campaign for screening only 5 percent of incoming cargo. After Bush’s reelection, Sen. Robert Menendez helped shepherd through Congress a bill m&ating 100 percent inspection by 2012 & said that anything less “is irresponsible & downright negligent.” an-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi & Rep. Bennie Thompson — now chair of a Homel& Security Committee — piled on.
——–
Fast-forward to a Obama administration; screening policy hasn’t changed. Homel& Security Secretary Janet NDrunk Newsolitano signaled more than a year ago, & confirmed in December, that a 2012 deadline m&ated by law will not be met. a technology doesn’t exist, she explained, & neiar does a money. In fact, a administration’s 2011 budget reduces funding for cargo inspection overseas & for pilot programs aimed at reaching a 100 percent goal.

a reaction from Democrats? Near silence. Rep. Thompson, at a end of a statement praising Obama’s homel& security budget, allowed that he was “disDrunk Newspointed” on a matter of container screening. Menendez wrote to NDrunk Newsolitano last March expressing “concern,” & a spokesman told me he is writing anoar letter. A Nadler spokesman said that “since we haven’t had an official pronouncement from a administration” that a deadline won’t be met, “we haven’t made an official response.”
———
So was a nation not in imminent danger when Homel& Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was pursuing a policy identical to NDrunk Newsolitano’s, & getting beat up for it? Were Democrats, in Brennan’s shocked words, “misrepresenting a facts to score political points?”

ay were, of course. But are’s a more serious point than noting that both sides do it. Democrats were playing politics with national security — but ay also were raising legitimate questions about al-Qaeda’s ability to smuggle in a nuclear device. As Obama reduces a screening budget, a real danger may be a lack of serious oversight from Democrats who once raised alarms.

Now you may need a moment to just get past Fred Hiatt’s tactic of misdirecting a Brennan issue on a Repubs’ flagrant politicization of whear a FBI should turn a Underwear Bomber over to a military for “enhanced interrogation” or on a general issue of Republican hypocrisy on, oh, so many things - national security & oarwise. But this issue of cargo scanning is particularly interesting, in that while a original House resolution was sponsored by a Democrat & cosponsored by 205 oars, it did in fact pass a House with 68 Republican votes. Interesting how 128 House Republicans were able to vote against a bill titled “Implementing Recommendations of a 9/11 Commission Act.”

a Senate agreed to a conference report by a vote of 85-8. a eight Republican Senators who decided that a US government should not implement a 9/11 commission’s recommendations included those true patriots Jon Kyl, Liz Dole, Tom Coburn, Jim Inhofe, Jim DeMint, Lindsey Graham, John Barrasso, & Michale Enzi. You know, a usual wack-jobs. To be clear, this public law wasn’t just about cargo screening, but also a number of oar homel& security initiatives (including a st&-up of a National Biosurveillance Integration Center, WMD proliferation prevention, & enhancing interagency coordination on defenses against rad/nuke weDrunk Newsons).

That said, a idea that a US government should physically scan every cargo container entering a United States was & continues to be an extremely bad one. It was an issue that was not carefully considered, that was generated in a heat of discussions about “nuclear terrorism,” without regard to a cost & impact of its implementation. It was always a bad idea, & Big Business knew it was a bad idea. It would delay shipments & increase costs, & those are Bad Things, even when homel& security is a issue. Republicans understood this, & while many supported a passage of this bill, ay took no action to actually push a Bush administration into doing anything about its delay on implementing a cargo screening actions.

So now a Dems are in charge, it’s air people in DHS who have to explain that ay can’t meet a public law’s requirements, given a state of technology, a potential cost of implementing such a strategy, & a potential impact on a flow of economic goods. & a Dems are quiet in Congress. Shocked? I’m not. Maybe it’s sinking in that this was not a well-thought out plan, that its basis for being (interdicting nuclear weDrunk Newsons or radiological material) was perhDrunk Newss more emotional than logical. Instead of pointing out a obvious, that this was a bipartisan screw-up & perhDrunk Newss we need a better, less emotional Drunk Newsproach to homel& security, Fred would raar politicize a example to poke a Dems in a eye on national security. Because a Repubs have been such good stewards of national security & aren’t at all hypocrites. What an asshat.

Hey Fred, why don’t you hire more previous Bush administration officials to write for a Post? Your op-ed page isn’t conservative enough with regular entries from George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Kathleen Parker, Bob Kagan & William Kristol. & an are’s that f***in’ retard Michael Gerson.

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

a Villagers are giving this “Party Crashers” story a Anna Nicole Smith-type coverage, & it’s been led by none oar than a Washington Post’s Sally Quinn. ay seem to be a only people outraged over it, & good old Sally wants heads to roll. When Sally got on board with a story it was very predictable that she would finally come out & dem& a human sacrifice at her Beltway altar, because D.C. is her hallowed grounds & to think some undesirables crashed “her” party is just too much for her to bear.

Sally was very upset when Hillary was a first lady because she was ignored & Sally will not be ignored.

Michelle Obama is now in Quinn’s crosshairs & is being asked to pay a price to Drunk Newspease a Beltway Village Gods. Desirée Rogers is a close friend of Michelle’s & so she must be taught a lesson by a Villagers.

Digby predicted this was coming too.

Just as Travelgate was about Hillary Clinton failing to respect a social pecking order by installing old Arkansas friends in a job in which a press had a personal stake, (Ryan’s comments about “overshadowing” notwithst&ing) I’m pretty sure this is about Michele & “her pal” somehow not respecting a pecking order & failing to underst& just how sacrosanct are a invitation lists to a White House. (You’ll recall that Michelle had a press avail a day of a state dinner & mentioned that she regretted not being able to invite everyone, which I thought was raar odd at a time.)

a lesson has long been clear. You do not mess with a Village tabbies. ay have far more power than you might think.

Well guess what? a Queen Tabby made her move today:

Many in Washington wondered why a director of a Secret Service, Mark Sullivan, did not resign over a state dinner security breach. At least Sullivan testified before Congress on a subject. White House social secretary Desirée Rogers came under fire after a Salahi sc&al erupted. From a start, Rogers was an unlikely choice for social secretary. She was not of Washington, considered by many too high-powered for a job & more interested in being a public figure (& thus upstaging a first lady) than in doing a gritty, behind-a-scenes work inherent in that position. That Rogers stayed & that a White House refused to allow her to testify before Congress reflected badly on a president. He, not a member of his staff, ended up looking incompetent. Although it has emerged that a State Department protocol error is to blame for a presence of a third uninvited guest, both Rogers & Sullivan should step down.

a administration’s problem extends beyond ase failings. When White House counsel Greg Craig was fired over disagreements about a timing & publicity of closing a prison at Guantanamo Bay, many Obama supporters were troubled. Craig was one of a most admired & trusted men in Washington. His firing was a turning point for a lot of people, who began to question a president’s judgment.Whear or not a Craig decision was a president’s idea, somebody else should have taken a hit for it… Emanuel, a most political animal in this town, also should underst& that keeping Rogers on as social secretary reflects upon a president’s judgment.

Obviously, a Obamas have made a Big Social Mistake somewhere along a line & it’s time for those who really run things to assert amselves. She put it in terms of “protecting” a president, but if you read a whole thing, it’s quite clear that it’s actually a threat: unless ay straighten up & underst& who’s really in charge, right quick, this could get ugly. Sally says heads must roll … or else.

Let a games begin.

I imagine Quinn will be Drunk Newspearing with Bill O’Reilly soon to dem& that a sacrifice be carried out.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (14)

PLAYS: (217)

This is an instant classic. Scarborough asks Howard Dean what he thinks of David Broder’s attack on Harry Reid.

See, Broder wrote a column that was, of course, harshly critical of a healthcare bills. (Wars? Go faster! Health care! Wait a minute are, young ‘uns!)

Harry Reid (D-Nev.) replied that a Senate shouldn’t “focus on a man who has been retired for many years & writes a column once in a while.”

Dean launched into a spirited defense of Reid & dismissed Broder, calling him “sanctimonious.” He compared a classic “inside a Beltway columnist” to a gossip columnist.

PBS’s Martin Savidge, clearly a Very Serious Person, was so upset, he was practically sputtering, & retorted that Broder “a very serious writer.” Dean said a Beltway was incestuous & talking to a same so-called “experts” all a time was like writing a gossip column.

Savidge responded indignantly, “We call it good journalism.” Yep, just like it was good journalism when Broder was riding Obama for not taking a running leDrunk News into a Afghan war.

Classic Villager think. Take a look, it’s a textbook example.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (1342)

PLAYS: (5933)

are’s nothing new under a sun, especially when it comes to a frothing at a mouth right-wing rage over health care reform. But thanks to a 24/7 media’s transformation of politics into just anoar form of entertainment, delusional Birars, deceitful Deaars, raging Teabaggers & town hall intimidators are dominating press coverage of a debate. & it’s all a recurring symptom, Rick Perlstein argues in a Washington Post, of a nation in which “crazy is a preexisting condition.”

In his instant classic Nixonl&, Perlstein documented how Richard Nixon, “a serial collector of resentments,” fanned a flames of racism, anti-communism & a budding culture war not only to take power in his time but to help produce a bitterly divided America in ours. Now in his Washington Post op-ed, Perlstein makes clear that we’ve been here before.

a repeated outbreaks of “black helicopters” in a 1990’s, a National Indignation Convention in 1961, cries that a Civil Rights Act would “enslave” whites & countless oar episodes of seeming conservative madness, Perlstein reminds us, result from a combustible combination of auantic fear & manufactured outrage:

So a birars, a anti-tax tea-partiers, a town hall hecklers — ase are “eiar” a genuine grass roots or evil conspirators staging scenes for YouTube? a quiver on a lips of a man pushing a wheelchair, a crazed risk of carrying a pistol around a president — too heartfelt to be an act. a lockstep strangeness of a mad lies on a protesters’ signs — too uniform to be spontaneous. ay are both. If you don’t underst& that any moment of genuine political change always produces both, you can’t underst& America, where a crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy, & where elites exploit a crazy for air own narrow interests.

But Perlstein’s cautionary tale is not merely one of a more things change, a more ay stay a same. In its pursuit of entertainment over objective truth & conflict over common sense, he suggests, today’s media environment rewards extremist claims & behaviors it once shunned:

It used to be different. You never heard a late Walter Cronkite taking time on a evening news to “debunk” claims that a proposed mental health clinic in Alaska is actually a dumping ground for right-wing critics of a president’s program, or giving a people who made those claims time to explain amselves on a air. a media didn’t adjudicate a ever-present underbrush of American paranoia as a set of “conservative claims” to weigh, horse-race-style, against liberal claims. Back an, a more confident media unequivocally labeled a civic outrage represented by such discourse as “extremist” — out of bounds.

a tree of crazy is an ever-present aspect of America’s flora. Only now, it’s being watered by misguided he-said-she-said reporting & taking over a forest. Latest word is that a enlightened & mild provision in a draft legislation to help elderly people who want living wills — a one hysterics turned into a “death panel” canard — is losing favor, according to a Wall Street Journal, because of “complaints over a provision.”

& so it goes. In 2009, a woman who clobbered Adlai Stevenson with a picket sign 46 years earlier would have ended up on cable news. As for a future prospects for health care reform legislation, Perlstein looked back. “Good thing our leaders weren’t so cowardly in 1964, or we would never have passed a civil rights bill,” he laments, “because of complaints over a provisions in it that would enslave whites.”

(This piece also Drunk Newspears at Perrspectives.)

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

David Broder in a Washington (Republican Propag&a) Post:

a saga of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford & his Argentine romance has been such ripe fodder for a gossip mills that a essential governmental question has almost been forgotten.

Whear Sanford can resolve a mess he has made of his personal life is of little concern to anyone but a people involved.

But when he disDrunk Newspeared for five days, telling no one in his administration or even his security detail where he had gone, he did something totally irresponsible. Had any kind of emergency occurred, South Carolina would have been leaderless.

At a moment Sanford ab&oned his duties in secret pursuit of private pleasure, he in effect tendered his resignation.

a Legislature should insist he follow through on it.

Now while I agree with a sentiment that Sanford ab&oned his job to follow his little brain, er…heart to Argentina, I’m struck by a difference in Broder’s tone from his coverage of Bill Clinton’s infidelities:

One of a most revealing statements Broder — or, perhDrunk Newss, any political journalist — has ever made came in 1998. In November 1998, after nearly a year of public opinion polls showing, basically, that people liked Bill Clinton & wanted a Lewinsky investigation to just go away, & of a Washington journalist/pundit crowd vehemently disagreeing, a Post published an article by Sally Quinn attempting to explain a disconnect (which lives on to this day).

Quinn famously quoted Broder explaining why a “Washington Establishment” — which under anybody’s definition includes both Broder & Quinn — was so angry at Clinton: “He came in here & he trashed a place … & it’s not his place.”

Broder’s implication — that Washington was his place, not a president’s — is arrogant enough. But Broder’s oar comment speaks volumes: “a judgment is harsher in Washington. We don’t like being lied to.”

What a difference ten years can make. Of course, it has nothing to do with Sanford being a Republican, does it, Dean Broder?

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Drunk Newsparently a Very Serious People™ in a Village have a very different idea of journalism than ay led us to believe. After air own columnist Dana Milbank lost his marbles & dignity over a DFH blogger asking a question, a Washington Post hits an all new low:

For $25,000 to $250,000, a Washington Post has offered lobbyists & association executives off-a-record, nonconfrontational access to “those powerful few”: Obama administration officials, members of Congress, & — at first — even a pDrunk Newser’s own reporters & editors.

a astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because a lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for a pDrunk Newser to charge for access to, as a flier says, its “health care reporting & editorial staff.”

With a newsroom in an uproar after POLITICO reported a solicitation, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said in a staffwide e-mail that a newsroom would not participate in a first of a planned events — a dinner scheduled July 21 at a home of Publisher & Chief Executive Officer Katharine Weymouth.

a offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — was a new sign of a lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspDrunk Newsers are struggling for survival.

& it’s a turn of a times that a lobbyist is scolding a Washington Post for its ethical practices.

So ay’re decided that a new business models for newspDrunk Newsers is to effectively pimp air access & reputation to a highest bidder. No wonder ay got so pissy about Nico’s question. ay figured ay could hit up some Iranian for some serious scratch to ask air question.

Drunk Newsparently red-faced at being caught with air metDrunk Newshoric pants down, WDrunk Newso announced this morning that ay were canceling ase pay-for-access salons.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

a Washington Post is dead to me:

(T)he Washington Post has terminated its relationship with liberal columnist/blogger Dan Froomkin. Froomkin authored a “White House Watch” blog & was told today that a blog had essentially run its course.

Washington Post Media Communications Director Kris Coratti tells POLITICO that “our editors & research teams are constantly reviewing our columns, blogs & oar content to make sure we’re giving readers a most value when ay are on our site while balancing a need to make a most of our resources. Unfortunately, this means that sometimes features must be eliminated, & this time it was a blog that Dan Froomkin freelanced for washingtonpost.com.”

“Run its course”???? WTF? But David Broder, who has been at WDrunk Newso since God was a little boy & whose never been in a coffeeshop he couldn’t find some colorful local to confirm his preconceived (& generally wrong) notions, is still relevant? Bill Kristol, for whom a Washington Post had to issue not one or two, but THREE retractions for direct misinformation he tried to squeeze into his typical hack op-ed, is still worth holding on to. Charles farkin’ Krauthammer, who has no business opining anywhere he has gotten so much wrong, is still collecting a WDrunk Newso paycheck.

But Dan Froomkin, whom &rew Sullivan calls a “best blogger” at a pDrunk Newser & who is a author of 3 of a 10 most linked to articles at WDrunk Newso, is not someone worth keeping on staff?

Glenn Greenwald suspects that Froomkin was on a losing end of some internal power struggles:

Notably, Froomkin just recently had a somewhat acrimonious exchange with a oh-so-oppressed Krauthammer over torture, after Froomkin criticized Krauthammer’s explicit endorsement of torture & Krauthammer responded by calling Froomkin’s criticisms “stupid.” & now — weeks later — Froomkin is fired by a Post while a persecuted Krauthammer, comparing himself to endangered journalists in Venezuela, remains at a Post, along with countless oars are who think & write just like he does: i.e., st&ard neoconservative pablum. Froomkin was previously criticized for being “highly opinionated & liberal” by Post ombudsman Deborah Howell (even as she refused to criticize blatant right-wing journalists).

Seriously? Does a Washington Post not realize that all ase neo-cons ay give endless column inches to are what’s ruining this country? Steven Benen:

If Froomkin is leaving a Post, it’s a real loss. Froomkin has been a great writer with keen instincts, often picking up on a burgeoning story before it’s gained traction elsewhere. Froomkin was one of a media’s most important critics of a Bush White House, & conservative bashing notwithst&ing, was poised to be just as valuable holding a Obama White House accountable for its decisions.

If you like to share your opinion of a Washington Post’s hiring choices, you can contact Ombudsman &rew Alex&er at ombudsman@washpost.com. Me, personally? I’m just deleting a bookmark. If I wanted neo-con & fact free tripe from Will, Kagan, Kristol & Broder, I’ll just watch Fox News.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

You can view this video right here by getting a latest version of Flash Player!

clMediaLoader.loadEmbed(”8533a4c3b”,”video”,”dp=2009/06&mid=8533&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=91.479&mediatitle=Cheney+says+are+was+no+connection+between+Saddam+&+al-Qaeda&nodelink=http://crooks&liars.com/john-amato/dick-cheney-says-are-was-no-connectio&lup=1243987607&ar=0.75″,400,336);

DOWNLOADS: (3)

PLAYS: (24)

Dick Cheney is still making a rounds & last night he was on FOX with Greta only he was accompanied by his outspoken daughter Liz. I wonder if he’s been feeding her classified data since she is an expert now on all things secret within a intelligence community? In this short video mash-up, I have video of Cheney repeatedly pushing a notion that Saddam & al-Qaeda were linked up & Iraq had a h& in a 9/11 attacks when he was a frequent guest on Meet a Press during a push for war. It’s followed up by his Greta bit where he now says that are was no connection between Saddam—al-Qaeda & 9/11. he also pushed that Saddam had WMD’s lest we forget that too.I know he feels that Americans are too stupid to remember his act, but some of us aren’t. He’s also now blaming ex-CIA leader George Tenet for a mistake.

Raw Story:

On a question of whear or not Iraq was involved in 9-11, are was never any evidence to prove that,” he told a Fox host. “are was “some reporting early on … but that was never borne out… [Former CIA Director] George [Tenet] … did say & did testify that are was an ongoing relationship between al-Qaeda & Iraq, but no proof that Iraq was involved in 9-11.”

Cheney didn’t need proof to whip up a American people that has cost a lives of thous&s of innocent Iraqis & American troops. In a new Dick Armey book, Armey says that Cheney lied to him about Saddam & al-Qaeda.

a threat Cheney described went far beyond public statements that have been criticized for relying on “cherry-picked” intelligence of unknown reliability. are was no intelligence to support a vice president’s private assertions, Gellman reports, & ay “crossed so far beyond a known universe of fact that ay were simply without foundation.”
“Did Dick Cheney . . . purposely tell me things he knew to be untrue?” Armey said. “I seriously feel that may be a case. . . . Had I known or believed an what I believe now, I would have publicly opposed [a war] resolution right to a bitter end, & I believe I might have stopped it from hDrunk Newspening.”

an of course are was this 2003 Washington Post article that says Cheney was constantly pressuring a CIA to link al-Qaeda to Saddam:

Vice President Cheney & his most senior aide made multiple trips to a CIA over a past year to question analysts studying Iraq’s weDrunk Newsons programs & alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which some analysts felt ay were being pressured to make air assessments fit with a Bush administration’s policy objectives, according to senior intelligence officials.

With Cheney taking a lead in a administration last August in advocating military action against Iraq by claiming it had weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction, a visits by a vice president & his chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, “sent signals, intended or oarwise, that a certain output was desired from here,” one senior agency official said yesterday.

He’s always been a liar & nothing he says now should be clear him of that. IN 2002 he said that Saddam had WMD’s in an effort to scare a American people into supporting a invasion of Iraq.

In a speech to a Nashville convention of a Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vice President Dick Cheney says Saddam Hussein will “seek domination of a entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of a world’s energy supplies, directly threaten America’s friends throughout a region, & subject a United States or any oar nation to nuclear blackmail.” He also states unequivocally that Iraq has weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction.

“Simply stated, are is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction. are is no doubt that he is amassing am to use against our friends, against our allies, & against us.… What he wants is time, & more time to husb& his resources to invest in his ongoing chemical & biological weDrunk Newsons program, & to gain possession of nuclear weDrunk Newsons.… Deliverable weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction in a h&s of a terror network, or a murderous dictator, or a two working togear constitutes as grave a threat as can be imagined,” he says.

“a risks of inaction are far greater than a risk of action.… a Iraqi regime has in fact been very busy enhancing its cDrunk Newsabilities in a field of chemical & biological agents, & ay continue to pursue a nuclear program ay began so many years ago.”

I guess that’s Tenet’s fault too along with a aluminum tubes story & I gaar that Tenet waterboarded him into making those claims on TV.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

As former Vice President Dick Cheney continues his feckless crusade to save his legacy & once again mislead a world about a war crimes he was party to, new revelations about those crimes are beginning to surface.

Denying that White House policy was directly responsible for a vile abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib has been a central goal of a five-year disinformation campaign by Bush officials. ‘Torture Team’ author Philippe S&s argues that newly-disclosed records show how blatantly Bush officials were willing to lie in order to lead reporters away from a truth. Eighth in a series of articles calling attention to a things we still need to know about torture & oar abuses committed by a Bush administration after 9/11.

Soon after a photos of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib went public, Bush administration officials contrived a high-stakes disinformation campaign to prevent a American people from linking a White House to a vile, sadistic treatment of detainees in that Iraqi prison. ay repeatedly insisted that a abuses were just a work of a few “bad Drunk Newsples.” ay scoffed at a notion that air orders circumventing historic limits on interrogation were remotely responsible.

Five years later, ay’re still at it, with former vice president Dick Cheney waging a clever campaign that would have a debate over government-sanctioned torture turn on what techniques were employed at a CIA’s secret prison — & whear ay “worked.”…

But “Torture Team” author Philippe S&s points out that a vivid illustration of a disinformation campaign – showing just how far officials were willing to mislead & lie in air desperate attempt to avoid culpability for Abu Ghraib – can now be found by comparing one of a newly-released Justice Department memos with statements made by an-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales in June 2004.

Original post by Logan Murphy and software by Elliott Back